COA: Insurance policy covers deputy killed while directing traffic

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Monroe County Sheriff’s deputy that was killed while directing traffic was using her car at the time of the accident and was entitled to coverage under the county’s policy under the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Christopher Jones, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Sarah Jones, deceased, No. 53A01-1012-PL-669, Christopher Jones sought to recover up to the $1 million policy limit from Argonaut Insurance Co. following the death of Monroe County Sheriff’s Deputy Sarah Jones. The Monroe County Board of Commissioners purchased the policy from Argonaut, which covered Jones’ vehicle.

Jones was directing traffic just outside of Bloomington while a tow truck worked to remove a car that had slid off the road. Her car was parked at an angle in the road and her emergency lights were activated. Bree Myers’ car hit and killed Jones.

The trial court granted summary judgment and later declaratory judgment in favor of Christopher Jones.

Argonaut argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the question of whether Jones was entitled to coverage under its policy’s UIM endorsement. It had claimed she wasn’t using her car within the terms of the liability policy. Citing, inter alia, Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Statesman Ins. Co., 260 Ind. 32, 291 N.E.2d 987 (1973), the judges found there to be an “active” relationship between Jones and the car, and that the car was in use under the terms of the policy. She had deployed her police vehicle to assist her in directing traffic and securing the scene of the truck slide off, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. This distance of Jones to the car does not matter as Argonaut had argued because Jones was in some active relationship to it at the time of the collision.

The judges had to determine what the words “resulting from” used in Argonaut’s policy meant, and no Indiana court has considered that phrase. The policy requires that an insured’s injuries be “caused by an ‘accident’ and resulting from … use of a covered ‘auto.’” The judges decided Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. McMichael, 906 P.2d 92, 104 (Col. 1995), was particularly illustrative, and found just as in that case, there can be no question here that the reasonable expectations of the Board of Commissioners and Argonaut would necessarily include the use of specialized and specially equipped patrol cars for traffic control and accident site safety, wrote Judge Bailey.

“Where such vehicles are then put to that use, where the individual is using the vehicle with consent of the owner for those specialized purposes and has an active relationship to the vehicle as deployed and the individual is injured in a manner that may reasonably arise from traffic control and accident site safety activities, we hold that that such an injury results from the use and is thus covered under the UIM and liability policy language presented to us today,” he wrote.

The judges rejected Argonaut’s argument that its decision affirming the lower court would cause the insurer to become an insurer for every sort of accident or injury incurred by an officer who is injured while on duty. In the instant case, Jones was actively using her vehicle to control traffic, and the car was integral to securing the scene. This is different from a case in which a police officer leaves his car for an extended period of time to perform activities in which the car isn’t essential.

The case also presented another issue of first impression regarding Argonaut’s claim that the employment exclusion precludes Jones from coverage under the liability portion of the policy and therefore would preclude her coverage under the UIM provisions. The judges found in this case, the employment exclusion provision doesn’t apply based on the reasonable expectations of the insured.

“The use of vehicles — patrol cars, motorcycles, and transport vans, among others — is integral to the work performed by police officers, as it was to Deputy Jones’s work. It is hard to see how any use of a police vehicle — indeed, any municipally-owned vehicle under the policy — could be covered under the liability policy and UIM endorsement if Deputy Jones’s use of her vehicle is not covered,” wrote the judge.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.